Safe Speed Forums

This topic is worthy of its own thread. I've split this off from here.
Smeggy




You surely mean the government's/SCP's figures and analysis - right? If not then why not!

SafeSpeed's work and analysis is largely based on the government's own figures and analysis. I mean, look at my sig below; we know it to be true but I don't see these people who are calling out for an SS review also calling for anything remotely the same for the claimed speed camera effectiveness.
How could anyone reasonably call for a review of only the group who has successfully highlighted the flaws within the original work?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Nah that's just a red herring.

We're a campaign group FFS. What campaign group ever published in a peer review journal?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Its not though is it.

Don't just say it - say why!
That was a nice attempt at point dodging BTW

Please do enlighten us as to why RTTM isn't merely an illusion making speed cameras appear significantly more effective than they actually are. I would love to see that!

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

So they are actually effective?

You know exactly what I meant by that.

Don't dodge another point.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Hospital stats are not showing any effectiveness. Accidents move around. People either choose a different route based on cam/congestion or changed circumstance.

Accident may have been a one-off which qualified for scam as scene suffered the appropriate level of carnage in the ONE incident as pointed out by Kevin Delaney on R4 programme on speed cams. Four boys die when young kid lost control und hit lamp-post. No accident ever occurred there before or since. This was one fluke accident caused by kid in red mist driving a car which had not been serviced properly per Kevin Delaney in another interview on R4.

But because no accident occur since .. the "cam ist held to be effective und preventing accident".. only this road never suffered carnage as constant in the first place


My sister-in-law ist particularly saddened by deaths of two lovely 17 year olds she knows. They die when car hit tree on rural residential in early afternoon. Bad weather.. strong wind driving the rain at the time.. I understand that the road had some large speed humps ... young kid driving a small car .. maybe mindful of being late for class - who knows for sure. Police still investigating this awful tragedy und deepest condolences to all those who knew und loved und taught those boys.

So accidents can happen anywhere in reality und no scamera can ever be held to prevent them on that basis. Chance.. tragic sequence of con-incidal empheral instances... lack of COAST skills.. that what cause far too many tragedies.

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

Did't the original report that didn't take account of return to mean get redone to do so, and still showed that the cited camera did reduce crash rates?

You're still dodging the points raised.

I stated that the claimed effectiveness of speed cameras have been shown to be a mere illusion, you responded with: 'Its not though is it' so I asked you to substantiate why. So far nothing relevant has been forthcoming.

Oh, and to answer your question (something you seem unable to do yourself): it did, but that's not the point. It clearly demonstrated that the claims put forth by the SCPs/government were indeed false - which was my point all along.
Also, the study you refer to didn't take into account 'bias on selection' - other additional measures in the vicinity of camera sites (the speed camera will always get full credit for, say, a newly installed pedestrian barrier nearby). Hence the figures of effectiveness from it were still falsely inflated.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

If 4 folk die in one single accident und this prove to be a one-off event .. then it still regressed to mean und still can be "held to have reduced crsh rates"

It call "spin" ...

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

Nope - expensive. The prats had gov grants to set up shoppe.

They are not effective in saving lives. Accidents do not occur in the one place. If they do.. then the road engineering has to be contributing to the accident blackspot und re-engineering out the danger point -along with hazard warning sign instead of teaching folk to look out for a yellow tin - und promoting a COAST based message might be a more useful und cheaper use of my hard earned contributions from salary to the Darling Cornetto.



Yes... because they lead to a belief that sticking to lolly does not kill or hurt anyone. This supersedes all other required skills in the dumbed down by Nanny brigade.

Also I make main point above as to how the scams are not saving anyone.



They have in roundabout way But George fail to read the reviews properly anyway.. or he disregard the bits which do not fit in with his point of view.

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

This is split off in response to a post in another topic here.
Smeggy




Please explain why you believe that to be.

Given RTTM, 'bias on selection' and the accident stats, it is hard to understand how they can be of any significant benefit at all. Couple that with the negative side effects and you have to wonder if they really are better than nothing, let alone much better.


Assuming that’s true, that doesn't mean the speed cameras were not responsible for the decline in trafpol activity and, more significantly, wouldn’t cause a further decline.

I'm not going to start arguing statistics when (perhaps on both sides but at least on your side) they haven't been peer-reviewed. But I have seen figures that show that RTTM isn't the case; it's somewhere between that and the original DfT figures. In other words, speed cameras do have an effect. As for 'bias on selection', well surely that's irrelevant; the one thing that counts here is whether RTTM is the case or not. A good example of where in my opinion they are much better than nothing is the A3 which is a three-laned road in west London. It used to have a 70 limit but now has a 50 limit, backed up by fairly frequent speed cameras. You used to get quite a lot of KSIs on it.



But if we got rid of speed cameras then more police would have to police the roads to the detriment of other crimes. This is one of those cases where the public generally will moan whatever happens.

_________________
Before you moan about middle-lane hoggers, check that you yourself are obeying all the rules of the road.

I’ve addressed the peer-review issue earlier here.
Why should a lack of peer review prevent you from ‘arguing statistics’? If that's the case why are you here posting on this forum? Are you not going to answer my request for an explanation?


What figures were you reading?
The RTTM study proved that RTTM is indeed the case!. The amount is that of RTTM figure, not one between RTTM and the DfT figures Furthermore, the ‘figures’ showed RTTM to be the major contributor to the perceived effectiveness of speed cameras, significantly moreso than the actual effectiveness.


Why on earth do you say that? I suspect you don’t know what it is or how it applies.
It is completely relevant to the argument of perceived speed camera effectiveness, separate and additional to the illusion of RTTM; it's just that it's hardly talked about because less study has been done on it.


Is that not classic RTTM? (or even some sneaky 'bias on selection')
If not then explain why not and how.


I noted how that didn’t address my point.
So why must we be given the option of being between a rock and a hard place? Do you know how police spend most of their time?

This thread, like most other long ones has degenerated into another tennis match of pointlessness (pointing out spelling errors, claims about questions not being answered and points avoided over and over again) and the issues which have been debated on hundreds of threads in the past over and over and over again have reached exactly the same non-conclusions.

If statistics are valid then peer-reviewing has no benefit. I would however like to see the work delivered as an up to date professional report (which can be PRed) as most of the website is out of date. A purging session may be advantageous to non-critical points (and some ludicrous ones, like the 12mph claim )

Yes I know but it still exists as an issue even if you think the Government's figures should also be peer reviewed.



Because as you know, "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics". To give an immediate example of why it's a waste of time, you've already got someone ignoring the serious injuries in a figure.



Alright already, come out with some stats and let's look at them.



I did answer your request for an explanation.



I'm afraid I can't remember where they were from but they were recent.



I don't know of any RTTM study - I don't read every road safety study that comes out you know.



Not the one I've seen, but again, I can't remember where I saw it.



Firstly, why have you put "figures" in single quotes? What does that signify in your view?



That makes sense as an argument, but these figures I heard suggested that you didn't purely get RTTM. It was more than that.



Fine, inform me.





How is that classic RTTM if you are getting less accidents than before?

Granted, the 50 limit will play a part.



Ok, speed cameras may well have been responsible for part of the decline in trafpol, along with a general public urge to get the police dealing with 'real' crime. It may well have been used as an excuse.



For clarification, what is the "rock" and what is the "hard place" in this case? We do still have some trafpol.



I'm sure they spend a lot of it on paperwork, which should be reduced where ever possible. But I have a feeling that you want to tell me what you think.

_________________
Before you moan about middle-lane hoggers, check that you yourself are obeying all the rules of the road.

In the tabloids yesterday . . there was article about the proliferation of speed cams und the fact that the KSI ist not exactly falling. Worse still - driving standards are continuing to worsen.


Per this report - backed by National Statistics Office figures - fewer folk are getting done for drink driving (only if involved in crash which police had to attend because of an Medium to Serious Injury - but not as the routine it once was nationwide with the officers on patrol stopping to check if they had cause or just having the odd road side blitz when they know folk might be daft enough to "throw their caution to the winds" ) Fewer folk also getting done for careless or downright negligent driving too.

Lieber IG quoted one example of a very nasty rfoad rager who only get 9 month jail .. but a 5 year driving ban - with licence only granted if he take extended test. I bet he ignore the ban. He caught only because other drivers observant enough to note his reg nunber - before stopping to assist stricken down cyclist. Speed cam NOT stop this. Perhaps if he thought a policeman might just lurk .. he may have behaved better.

(of course - he may just have been the low life who attack these lovely officers who try to make that difference.. but even so.. this part of job und IG tell me that officers are well trained to cope as




I do enjoy bashing the bibs on some things.. I admit .. I am a natural born rebel

But I do know from the loveliest Dibble, gone et al on the Pistonhead site .. whom I like und admire .. that they all get gobbed on und abused for no reason other than simply doing a difficult job und I support their grumbles over the current short changing on the English cop pay-rise too.

I do not begrudge one penny of my taxes funding a decent police force. I would not begrudge a few pennies more if this provide what society require either. You get what you pay for und back in Appenzell - I would be paying more tax.. but I would get as much back with a little "value added in services rendered" in return all the same.

Here? I think I am funding civil servants' und failing MP's pension plans


The national stat site has .. for the lurker called Steve's ( It ist a lop-sided submarine benefit und nananananah-NAH to live up to my reputation as the "family's wild one" .. but there are some breakdowns per region und it no accident that the areas who do still have a decent RPU . also appear to prosecuting more really dangerous idiots. It not their fault that a pee cee judge decide to "be kind to road raging chavs" either You know the type .. not qualified in first place .. so what the point of a ban when lock-up ist really the only way to get them off the road for a while

But as the RAC man in this same article said..



Paulie also quoted very, very well in all these tabloid pieces on this topic yesterday

So .. it not just Paul saying this .. but his [i]peers who happen to be part of a different organisation which has issues over the very stupiduse of the speed cam to the detriment of real road safety matters und to the peril of all road users.


I know what I want .. but stupidity und apathy decree that the UK put up with poor value for money when they once had pennies doing work to two pennies.

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

I should start with this:

This is incorrect. What actually transpired is that you clearly did not want to talk about stats (simply because they were not peer-reviewed); I never showed any inclination either way, I merely asked you to explain your stated belief - is that not reasonable?

How does peer-review exist as an issue and why?
How can you stand by your claim of cameras being effective "much better than nothing" and not calling for a review on the data that is based upon, yet call for Safespeeds’s work to be peer-reviewed? Does that not seem like a strongly biased stance, especially given the proven RTTM?

Yes there are there are "lies, damned lies, and statistics" but how do you know if it is coming from here if you don’t 'argue the statistics'? Isn’t that, as well as accepting what the SCPs state, a bit of a leap of faith on your part?
I can post the RTTM statistics, but should I not bother because they are "lies, damned lies, and statistics"? (That’s a serious question. Yesterday I discovered that I would have to spend significant effort digging up my correspondence with Linda Mountain [I have to install Outlook and mess about with several PST files]).

Then there’s the stats19 data that shows the portion of vehicles exceeding the speed limits involved in crashes (5%); that strongly supports the RTTM argument.


I think you about summed it up; you even answered your own question.


Aren’t these replies self contradictory?
What did you read if it wasn’t an RTTM study? Was it even relevant?

I also found myself wondering about the …..validity of your 'figures', moreso now that you’ve admitted that you don’t know of any RTTM study; hence the quotes.


The figures put the RTTM portion at between 2/3 to 3/4 of the gross reduction, so leaving 1/3 to 1/4 of the claimed reduction seemingly genuinely attributable to speed cameras. However, the resultant 'genuine reduction' did not take into account 'bias on selection'.


'Bias on Selection' – the application of an external influence so making the implementation (the camera) appear falsely more effective than it actually is.
(I don't know what the technical name is so I coined my own.)

When a speed camera is erected alongside another new road safety measure, like a pedestrian barrier/crossing, central reservation, junction re-layout, etc, or even just a danger awareness campaign, what do you think gets credited for any subsequent reduction in accident rate? Both, or just the "camera site"? Think about that – that’s sneaky huh?
No figures exist for the effectiveness of the described other measures, that in itself should be ringing alarm bells – yes?
So 'bias on selection' is an additional illusion of false effectiveness, independent of statistical RTTM – yes?


Was that your A3 example? If so then that wasn’t an explanation (it’s more than likely invalidated by RTTM and 'bias on selection' anyway); if not then can you quote the text of your explanation because I cannot find it.


Isn’t that a defining characteristic of the illusion of RTTM? If not then what’s the difference?


"Will"? To what level? Can you substantiate that claim? (PS, even if true that’s another example of 'bias on selection').

Of course it's reasonable, and I did.



Let's put it another way: if the data is so good then why not get it peer-reviewed? Is it not worth doing so in order to shut George Monbiot up?



I guess because I trust the government more. And because I am on the Safe Speed site. But yes, perhaps the government should have it's data peer-reviewed. And again, I don't accept that RTTM is proven. I have now found my source for it being wrong - I have no doubt though that you will dismiss it out of hand.

"... in 2005, the government conducted a new analysis that took account of regression to the mean. The fresh figures showed an average reduction of 19% for collisions that caused deaths or injuries after speed cameras had been installed."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... 72,00.html



The point here is that I don't have the time to argue them. Even writing a post like this takes up a lot of my time. I'm sure you know that when you get into something like this it gets very detailed. I have found my source (or 'source' if you prefer) for my disagreement above.



Again, I refer to my source above.



Please clarify.



No, because I was talking about individual figures rather than studies.



Mentioned above.



Er, well I do know of a study but I haven't looked at it, as explained above.



Firstly, why do you keep putting the link in? It makes it very hard to read when replying.




Yes, so in the case of the A3 are you trying to claim that it was the 50 limit that resulted (I believe) in the reduction of accidents above and beyond RTTM, rather than the speed cameras?



Yes. Now as you asked me twice, let me ask you twice: why do you keep putting your link (from this site) in like that? What's the point?



You've done it again! Goodness, what is that all about? I shall quote the text of my explanation at another point as I'm in the middle of this reply.



And again! No the point was that you're getting less accidents than simply immediately before.



Sorry, I thought that was something that you would have agreed with. Well if not then where's the 'bias on selection'?


PS: I've just realised that this link thing might be automatic.

_________________
Before you moan about middle-lane hoggers, check that you yourself are obeying all the rules of the road.

Monbiot ist absurd.


He so bigotted in opinion on all topics on which he has different view und it not matter if anyone has reviewed it.


Besides as he has, in fact, acknowledged in one article in which he disagree with the finding of one piece of research




True.. but coming from him - it tell me that it not matter if reviewed by anyone or not - he will not accept anything which contradict his point of view.

But anything which ist peer reviewed ist not claiming the conclusion ist necessarily correct und never to be superseded by further research. It simply means peers as in "like qualification" do a more or less "walk through test" as to how the author collated his/her data to arrive at his or her findings.

But,.. in roundabout way ... Paul's work has been "peer reviewed" since a Professor Rose Baker - acclaimed statistician of Salford University got pinged by a camera. She was outraged - und began to make some research. She found that the whole ping thing was a lottery which ist no more effective at saving lives than at removing seriously dangerous drivers from the road. She also found that accidents did indeed regress back to the mean" creating the statistical illusion of effectiveness in preventing accidents"

This work was published in an academic journal for Mathematicians around 2004. It was peer reviewed with Rose's work being found to be of normal faultless logic.


It significant that she came to a similar conclusion to our Paulie here






Since when has a politician ever told the truth. You are a fool if you trust any government whose punchline of whatever flavours ist always

"Since we came to power .. we have spent .. increased numbers dentists, teachers, doctors,, nurses.. policemen ... bababababa"

when we all know nosuch thing has occurred or likely to occur in the real world here





Ah an article written by Monbiot...


Ah.. the Pennington thing.

They admitted that the data collation by the pratnerships left a lot to be desired und thus gave an inconclusive result .. but then the Grauniad like any other newspaper ist selective in reporting und quoting anyway .., :whistle:


You never get the whole story in any paper. Or you read a journalist's point of view which not the same thing as reading the real thing in the academic journal in question





The "Grauniad" ist a newspaper und not the actual source. A journalist will report with a subjective slant Especially Monbiot

It why we very careful with press releases on the drug trial results. We already have one which the press hyped up. It can help cure .. but it not the right medicine for all just cos it cost a small fortune





Which happen to be how a journalist reported on something but select the parts he like It a subjective piece of journalism - like any article in any press.

The whole article as it appeared in actual academic journal read by those peers who understand the whole thing read differently

Unfortunately -Monbiot skip over the things he not want to read but fasten on the bits which fit in with his absurd point of view.

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!